Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masha (singer) (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This has been a debate dominated primarily by Dontreader's evident passion for the subject, but in closing I note that there's been compelling arguments grounded in policy on both sides, leading to no semblance of clear consensus. I see no value in sending this to the relist for a third time as I do not feel that will yield any further, reasonably actionable outcomes, girly behaviour or otherwise. KaisaL (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Masha (singer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Added PROD: "The current coverage is all still questionable with the best being only the AdWeek and even that is generously informative about the music video, my searches have simply found nothing better aside from a few other links but certainly nothing actually largely convincing. The listed "Grammy" cannot be considered the exact known Grammy as this person's "Grammy" was apparently only for a gig". I was actually PROD this until I noticed the 1st AfD and I still see nothing convincingly better. Notifying 1st AfDer. SwisterTwister  talk  06:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The article needs work, specially references (there is a couple of deceiving ones), but a quick google search produced a few references that may worth considering for giving the article a chance: 1, 2, 3. Aust331 (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete standards for musician articles are among the lowest on wikipedia due to systemic bias but unless there is something particularly notable, a musician needs to at least have a hit record to merit enough notability for an article. MLA (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect about the notability requirements for musicians. See WP:MUSICBIO. Aust331 (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , systemic bias? Like, one which works to include everything? I think the standards for rasslers are significantly lower still... Also, yeah, no, a hit single is not necessary; Miles Davis never even released a single. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * yep that's the kind of systemic bias I mean. The threshold for receiving media coverage for a musician is incredibly low - after all the entire music journalism industry is built around writing about unknown artists.  I'm a regular user of the random article button and I come across dozens and dozens of articles on musicians who have never made any real impact but do have media coverage.  I still think a hit record is needed to show notability but of course there are exceptions - and albums of Miles Davis records are of course incredible. MLA (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject doesn't meet any of the requirements for notability, whether general or specific--and this article was clearly written by a fan or other interested party. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - As noted above standards for musicians are extremely low however if you can't even meet those then you're basically screwed here, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails MUSICBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep In 2012 she was on VH1's Big Morning Buzz Live show, and performed two songs. VH1 confirms that she performed one song, and you can find on YouTube that she wrapped up the show with "Payphone" by Maroon 5. How many non-famous musicians on Wikipedia have performed on a nationwide US television show? Also, a year later, her cover of a Nirvana song was picked up by Lifetime channel to promote their series Witches of East End (we've got an Idolator source and here's a commercial or a trailer  to prove it). And of all people, she was chosen for a massive Three Olives Vodka campaign in late 2014. There are many reliable sources for that claim, such as Adweek  and The New York Times . How can she not be notable? The problem, I'm guessing, is that you people spend 10 minutes to decide whether or not an article should be destroyed. I spend hours doing research. This same nominator (SwisterTwister) wanted to also destroy the article for The Ragbirds even though there's a vast amount of coverage in reliable sources, and the band charted on Billboard with an album, and on the Japan Hot 100 with a single. That's very careless and irresponsible behavior. This girl is a trickier case for searches, but there was no excuse for that awful mistake with The Ragbirds. The survival of articles should not be taken lightly. Dontreader (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I wonder if GALO Magazine could be considered reliable. This article has some potentially useful information, particularly for an Early life section. Thanks in advance for any opinions. Dontreader (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Please check the Career section now. More can be said about her EP using reliable sources, but already the subject's notability has been clearly established after lengthy research despite problems with dead links. Things clearly haven't gone quite as expected earlier for her, but we definitely have a Start-Class article that deserves to remain on Wikipedia, and improvements can obviously be made. Dontreader (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I did some research on NewSound magazine, and it looks reliable enough to me. It has an article about the subject on pages 38 and 39 . The author seems sufficiently competent . I found a similar situation with Kempire Daily. It seems good enough, and has been used for sourcing other Wikipedia articles . Unless you believe these sources are not reliable, there's no way to claim insignificant coverage. And even if you dismiss these articles, any objective Wikipedian can see that this subject is notable. Dontreader (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's an article in Entertainment Tonight Canada all about the subject ., , and , exactly how much more coverage do you need in order to change your votes? Something the size of the Bible, maybe? Or even bigger? I never expected much from Twisted Sister but I had faith in the others. I have obviously spent many hours proving that this subject is notable, yet you won't spend half a minute to change your votes, out of spite, I guess. You don't deserve to be treated with respect. This discussion is about whether Masha deserves to have an article or not, regardless of your opinions of me. Do the right thing, please. Your girly behavior doesn't become you. Dontreader (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * : I like you, and I like your enthusiasm, but you are way off base here. I respect that you have strong feelings about this, but it is unfair to let your emotions color your impressions of those who disagree with you. The editors you castigate are your colleagues; they desrve your respect. I've been openly critical of some of SwisterTwister's work in the past, but I've never seen him act out of spite. He doesn't typically reply to comments at AFD, so it's no surprise that he hasn't engaged with you. Davey2010 is a regular with a solid track record; statistics aside, my impression of him is that he leans towards inclusionism. (Note that he voted "keep" in the previous discussion.) Even in hostile situations, I have yet to see Drmies lose his cool, and I am positive that he has been nothing but rational in his vote here. Nobody is trying to spite you. Moreover, despite voting "keep" and having a decent bias in favor of including the subject, I think it's a pretty close call. (girly comment) Rebb  ing   20:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The Untitled Magazine is definitely reliable even though for some inexplicable reason it's not on Wikipedia yet. This article has a vast amount of detailed coverage. Dontreader (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , doing a cocktail campaign and singing a song on VH1, that's not exactly of biblical scope, though I appreciate the rhetoric. However, this "girly behavior" comment, that's just incredibly stupid, and I'll put a nice sticker on your talk page saying so. I'll gladly remove it after you apologize, and if you make a sexist personal attack like that again I'll block you. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to talk page. Rebb  ing   22:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks like there might be just enough to satisfy WP:BIO/WP:GNG. I don't agree that having a song selected for a commercial, used in a tv show, placing in the top 40 of a television competition, etc. do much to help. However, a live performance on VH1 is not insignificant, and articles which provide significant coverage of her and her song (regardless of whether it's in a commercial) is helpful (e.g. New York Times, AdWeek. Pretty decent sources: New Sound (pp. 41-42), Entertainment Tonight Canada, Untitled Magazine. And some meh-to-halfway-decent sources: GALO Magazine, Kempire Daily, Baeble Music, Huffington Post, Idolator. All in all, I'd say there's enough to keep here. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my view, the sources enumerated by Rhododendrites are just barely enough to meet GNG—I think I saw chalk, but on the line is still fair. (girl vote) Rebb  ing   20:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Apology I feel deeply sorry about my behavior in this AfD discussion. Early on I decided to publicly try to shoot down SwisterTwister. His behavior does concern me, as I believe AfDs should be handled with extreme caution, but it was unethical to use this venue to try to damage his credibility and reputation in AfD situations. I apologize to him for using that tactic. It was terribly wrong. I should have gone elsewhere to voice my concerns. And then last night, after a total of more than 10 hours over the past few days doing research to find significant coverage to prove that this subject is notable, and improving the article, I finally snapped. No votes had been changed. I felt that no one cared about reaching consensus. It seemed to me, based on previous experiences, that no one wanted to change their vote simply because I technically have a lower rank. I thought big egos were getting in the way of doing the right thing for the project. I irrationally believed, when I snapped, that I was dealing with "enemies", so I brought out my chainsaw. But there was no excuse for creating that toxic environment. I must assume good faith. I even turned this place into a very tacky circus by calling SwisterTwister "Twisted Sister". Absolutely deplorable. Again, I apologize to everyone that I attacked, and I promise that from now on I will be an example of great civility in AfDs. Just a couple of things: 1. When I said "girly behavior", I meant the behavior of a female child. How can I be sexist when I absolutely adore Rebbing? By the way, my love, I will keep on lighting candles every night at the shrine I built for you despite the fact that you scolded me here. Even if you had been wrong, I would have kept on buying those expensive candles, but you were right, as always, fairest of ladies. 2. Drmies, Masha didn't sing a song on VH1. She sang TWO songs on VH1, so that changes everything, of course. And you claimed that I wrote something "incredibly stupid". Honestly, I expected something better from you. After all, you are an Administrator here. "Outrageously stupid" would have been fine. Dontreader (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This was a very nice apology, darling. As someone who often finds herself needing to apologize, I am envious of your ability to convey your contrition. Inappropriate as it was, I didn't take offense to your "girly bahavior" comment; I was more amused than anything. Also, I appreciate the candles; my favorite were the rose-scented beeswax ones you used last week, but I understand that's probably not going to be an everyday thing. Rebb  ing   03:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (Just to lighten things up a bit - please place new votes under this comment) Oh, fairest of WikiFairies, how could a being so pure ever need to apologize for anything? It's true that when you wander delicately and delightfully through magical forests (your natural habitat), dozens of fawns always follow you, temporarily leaving their mothers, who become very jealous indeed, until you caress their little ones in your unique tender fashion; otherwise they would never return. However, it's not your fault that fawns are so fond of you. Also, I'm overjoyed and honored that you appreciated the rose-scented candles. Certainly they are not an everyday thing, for this week I've been lighting lilac-scented candles instead. I just cannot celebrate you enough! Dontreader (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.